WILLIAMS v. ARMEL et al

Filing 208

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the Motions and responsive briefing by the parties, and having found no basis upon which to grant Plaintiff the relief sought, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's Motions to Appeal and objections (Docket Nos. 137 , 168 , 171 , 177 ) are denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/10/17. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARK-ALONZO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:16-cv-01233
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court are the Motions to Appeal and objections filed by MarkAlonzo Williams (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.C.2. (Docket Nos. 137, 168, 171,
177). Among the myriad allegations contained therein, Plaintiff presents three primary requests
for relief: (1) that this Court overturn the decision of United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo
Lenihan denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order, and
transfer Plaintiff out of SCI-Forest to another correctional facility; (2) that this Court overturn the
decision of Magistrate Judge Lenihan denying preservation of certain documentary and video
footage from SCI-Forest; and (3) that Magistrate Judge Lenihan recuse from further proceedings
in this case.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff provided notice to the Court on July 6, 2017, that he had
recently been transferred from SCI-Forest to SCI-Camp Hill. (Docket No. 205). Accordingly, to
the extent that any of Plaintiff’s Motions for Appeal seek transfer or other action pertaining to
the conditions of Plaintiff’s custody at SCI-Forest, said Motions shall be denied as moot. See
Oparaji v. N.E. Auto-Marine Terminal, 437 F.App’x 190, 192 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2011) (“A motion is
moot when a court is unable to fashion any form of meaningful relief.”).

With respect to Plaintiff’s insistence that the Court overturn Magistrate Judge Lenihan’s
denial of Plaintiff’s requests for preservation of the SCI-Forest “DC-121 Incident Report,” as
well as video footage from January 11 and April 30, 2017, the Court observes that none of these
appear to be relevant to the underlying claims in this case, all of which are asserted against
Defendants as a function of their employment at SCI-Fayette. (Docket No. 99 at 3 – 5). The
DC-121 Incident Report and video footage pertain only to the activities of SCI-Forest staff, and
do not, therefore, appear to merit an order for preservation at this time. See Capricorn Power
Co., Inc. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429, 433 – 34 (W.D. Pa. 2004)
(Enumerating three factors to consider when determining whether or not to issue an order
preserving evidence: (1) the court’s level of concern for maintenance of evidence in question; (2)
irreparable harm likely to result absent such an order; and (3) the ability of the parties to preserve
the evidence in question). Additionally, the issue of preservation of the DC-121 Incident Report
is not properly before this Court, because there is no indication that it was previously raised with
Magistrate Judge Lenihan. See Polsky v. United States, 844 F.3d 170, 174 n. 5 (3d Cir. 2016)
(Noting that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered). Finally, Plaintiff
was ordered to seek preservation of the video footage in question through established
administrative avenues at SCI-Forest before seeking leave of court. (Docket No. 173). Plaintiff
has provided no evidence that he attempted to avail himself of any such administrative process.
See Escobedo v. Oddo, 2016 WL 6948294, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2016) (finding failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, in part, because the plaintiff failed to properly seek preservation
of video footage of a prison incident). The Court shall deny Plaintiff’s Motions to the extent that
he asks this Court to overturn the rulings of Magistrate Judge Lenihan as to the Incident Report
and video footage, and/or enter an order to preserve same.

2

In terms of Plaintiff’s request that Magistrate Judge Lenihan recuse from the instant case,
the Court notes that federal judges must recuse if:
a party timely files a sufficient affidavit, setting forth factual statements showing
the judge has personal bias or prejudice against a party. 28 U.S.C. § 144. An
affidavit that puts forth conclusory statements and opinions, however, is
insufficient and does not require recusal under § 144. Hill v. Carpenter, 323
Fed.Appx. 167, 170 (3d Cir. 2009). Section 455 applies regardless of whether a
party files a formal motion and affidavit for recusal, and requires recusal when a
judge's impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or
“[w]here [she] has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. §
455(b)(1).
The test for recusal is an objective one and requires recusal where a “reasonable
person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In re Kensington Int'l Ltd., 368
F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004). The bias required before recusal is warranted under
either § 144 or § 455 “must stem from an extrajudicial source.” Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 544, 554, (1994). Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit has made it clear that “a party's displeasure with legal rulings does
not form an adequate basis for recusal.” Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v.
Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). The Circuit reinforced the
point that disqualification and recusal should not be methods of “judge
shop[ping].” In re Earl A. Pondexter, 2013 WL 5229973, at *1 (3d Cir. Sept. 18,
2013). In order to establish the level of bias necessary to require recusal, facts that
arise during the course of litigation are usually insufficient. Further, “opinions
formed by a judge on the basis of events occurring in the course of prior
proceedings do not constitute a basis for a bias motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144,
455(a) and 455(b)(1), unless they display a deep-seated antagonism that would
make fair judgment impossible.” Atwell v. Schweiker, 274 Fed.Appx. 116, 117
(3d Cir. 2007).
N’Jai v. Bentz, 2016 WL 3261892, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2016) (Fischer, J.). Plaintiff’s
wholly unsubstantiated accusations regarding Magistrate Judge Lenihan’s conduct and
relationships with other parties to the case are conclusory and insufficient to meet the standard
for recusal. The Court will, therefore, deny Plaintiff’s Motions to the extent that recusal is
sought.

3

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2017, upon consideration of the Motions and
responsive briefing by the parties, and having found no basis upon which to grant Plaintiff the
relief sought,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Appeal and objections (Docket
Nos. 137, 168, 171, 177) are DENIED.
/s/ Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.
Mark-Alonzo Williams
FL 2923
SCI Camp Hill
P.O. Box 8837
Camp Hill, PA 17001
(via regular mail)

4